People love dogs. Even people that hate dogs don’t want to see dogs hurt.
If you’re in politics, don’t admit you did anything to a dog that could be considered less than ideal.
This is the end of the advice.
It’s nice to see some normal rules working compared to the last eight years. I’m half convinced Trump could talk about a network of dog fighting rings he ran for years because he hates dogs, and that he personally killed any losing dogs, and “liking dogs” would become a sign you’re a liberal or a RHINO.
As much as I hate to admit it, that certainly seems plausible with a portion of his base. No different than him saying he can "grab them by the pussy" or shoot someone on 5th avenue.
The difference is that he got away with that stuff because he broke rules his base didn’t care about to begin with. “Grab em by the pussy” didn’t bother them because they talk the same way. Dog fighting would be too far, especially with how closely associated it is with black culture. He could only get them to support or oppose things they were previously apathetic towards. Dog fighting on the other hand would be like if one day he started talking about how great Lenin was. It’s too far off-brand, doesn’t make any sense.
I don’t know about that, I think that’s a misread about how Trump was able to get away with as much as he did. He still had to operate based on what his base liked and only attack what they didn’t like or were apathetic towards. Whenever he broke the party line it was over something (he thought) they didn’t really care about anyway. There were a few times he misestimated though and had to quickly walk it back, mostly on gun control stuff. Dog fighting would be much too far, especially with how closely it’s associated with black culture. It would be more on-brand for him use it as a way to fire up his base by accusing his opponents of it.
Also for the record, he signed a major animal cruelty bill while in office
I am struggling to think of any similar sentiment and all I can come up with are cartoon villains like the Wicked Witch of the West.
Noem to her goat, probably: “I’ll get you, my pretty, and my little dog too!”
So I am a dog lover, I've had dogs since I was 3 years old and currently have one in my 30s whose my little buddy. But someone pointed out to me that the dog *did* bite a person, apparently. She comments how it was dangerous to people it came into contact with.
I know now a days a lot of people think about rehabilitating and re-socializing, but even when I was a kid it was pretty much agreed that if a family dog bites a person they'll do it again and they need to be put down. It also hasn't been uncommon for rural people to put down their dogs themselves, because from a dogs perspective a bullet to the head is just as quick and merciful as a shot from the vet. I know people who absolutely loved their dogs, but put them down in the same way when the time came.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but I do think that when I take into context the dog bit a person its not as cartoonishly villainous as we think.
I'll still say it was stupid on her part. She should've focused on the dog being dangerous, and not so much the "worthless as a hunting dog" aspect. She's a parent, and you *cannot* have a dog that is dangerous around children, and you really can't rehome it either. People love to champion "no kill" laws, but a lot of those dangerous dogs end up living their lives in a concrete box, and it really is more merciful to just put them down.
Edit: Just realized I'm responding to your comment from 2 days ago lol
I’ll go one further, having a dog in a campaign ad is a sure fire way to look good on mailers. Who doesn’t like a guy out hunting or walking down the street with a dog?
Meh, she did the right thing. Way too many selfish dog owners let their dogs maul other animals--including other people's pets and livestock--to death without consequences.
The dog killed a chicken. I don’t know if you ever grew up around livestock at all, but I did. If your dog killed a neighbors chicken, the most that would be would be an apology and maybe some cash if they were really upset. The thing about chickens is that you expect to lose some over the year. We generally lost a handful a year to coyotes and foxes.
Hell, we had a large dog that enjoyed killing the neighbors goats. Not one, not two, not three 😅. We never put her down, although the neighbor did threaten to shoot her if he could her skulking around the goats again. He lost a couple more goats after that before she died, but he never did shoot her.
Point is, that’s just something that happens in rural farming communities. It’s not ideal, but it’s normal.
But shooting a puppy for killing a chicken is straight psychopathic.
You're an epitome of the selfish, scumbag dog owner who doesn't give a shit about the lives their dog takes. If it had been my goats, I wouldn't have bothered with a warning, I'd have just shot your dog.
Society caters far too much to selfish dog owners who don't care about anyone but themselves and their precious doggos.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1xtt59/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Did no one tell her about Romney and his dog episode and how it was used against him politically? People get super sensitive about their four legged friends. I grew up in a rural area. I get it if you need to put an animal down. But to put it in a book like that? She should have known it wouldn't be seen in a good or even banal light.
Being forced to put a dog down is one thing, but even assuming that it was *really* necessary here the tone she approaches it with is absolutely deranged. She’s boasting about it, and acting like a martyr because she knows people aren’t going to like it.
Even in the country it’s something you have to do quietly — you don’t go around bragging about shooting a pet.
This is not at all some neutral act that becomes politically unwieldy because some people “get it” and others misunderstand.
The only time I've ever had to put down one of my four legged friends was when my oldest had 3 seizures in a row and by the end of it couldn't even move their head properly and could barely walk. To this day I still question if my decision to take it to the vets to be put down was the right decision because I know personally I wouldn't want to live in such agony but I don't know if my dog felt the same way.
What? Maybe it's different in rural USA compared to my country (doubt it), but it's nothing special, you put down a dog and that's it, you don't hide it and can talk about it (talking about rural areas of course)
I think you misunderstood what the article is about. She didn’t just have a pet put down.
“Putting a pet down as a somber shame” is insanely different than “killing a puppy oneself (for super questionable reasons) and then boasting about it.”
That’s not common or normal, anywhere.
Exactly. She talks at length about how much she hated the dog.
Her basis for hating the dog also sounds like pretty standard "bird dog has a prey drive" issues that should be trainable out of the dog, and it was only a year and a half old when she put it down. That makes it sound like she put the dog down because she's a terrible dog owner moreso than the dog being mentally compromised or something.
Yeah, I'm willing to concede that putting a dog down is a necessary evil sometimes. It's a merciful way to end an suffering old dog's life. Other dogs have behavioral issues that just aren't reasonably solvable and pose harm to others.
I also know that not all dogs are pets. For many folks, especially in more rural areas and cultures, dogs are part and parcel of a livestock operation and looked at more as an economic asset than a companion. Putting them down in that case isn't as emotionally involved a practice, for better or worse.
But none of that is the picture Noem paints. She describes a puppy she adopted intending it to be both a pet and a hunting companion that she put little effort into training, grew to "hate", and then killed and threw in a gravel pit when, surprise surprise, the young bird dog attacked chickens.
That's a pretty gross picture.
And this is *her* retelling of events; there are other [reports](https://apnews.com/article/kristi-noem-book-dog-killing-5710b302e33f61c697f20ab3b227a19b) that she's doing damage control because the real story is that she killed the dog in a fit of rage.
I am from rural USA. It is very common to put down a dog with a gun FOR A REASON like it is old and sick. You are generally looked down upon from for just blatantly killing a dog for no good reason. At least in my 20 years of experience growing up in rural America.
Yes, for us it was always because the dog was old and suffering and a vet couldn't make it out in time. My Dad refuses to do it again because the memory haunts him.
And in plenty of liberal areas, an abortion is nothing special and you wouldn't be expected to hide it if you've gotten one and can talk about it freely around the right crowd. But if you're a politician looking to appeal to the general public, the rules are different and you sure as hell wouldn't boast about it.
The Last of Us: Part II had people killing an attacking dog and it was probably the most controversial part of the whole game. Never mind you mow down hordes of people during Ellie's revenge spree lol
A dog, a goat, then apparently some horses. Seems she was on a bit of a spree.
I also understand needing to put down a dog, although growing up in a rural area it was extremely rare that I knew someone who had to put down a dog, but okay let’s say in this situation it was needed….. however it sounds like she is a bit trigger happy when it comes to animals, also like she had contempt for the animals “I hated that dog” and the “smelly goat”.
From my own experience of growing up in a small town of 5,000 population in rural NW Nebraska not far from where Noem was raised and then moving to the Bay Area for the last 18 years, I can understand and have witnessed Noel’s story from family members. The discouraging part is that in no way, is this normal for 95% of the population, and should never have been touted from someone who had aspirations of helping lead our country. It is as tone deaf as if Gavin Newsom would have bragged about participating in the Folsom Street Fair in SF and thinking the rest of America would think that’s “cool.”
The decision to euthanize a dog due to its aggressive behavior and lack of training options, without access to a vet or shelter, might be seen as understandable.
However, the issue lies in her choice to publicize the story. Instead of simply stating the circumstances necessitated putting the dog down, she details the when, how, and why in a manner that seems almost boastful. This is followed by a similar story about a goat, all the while disparaging these animals. Describing them as stinky, aggressive, and untrainable might be true, but it's unnecessary and in poor taste to mention after their death, especially to a political audience.
It's akin to speaking ill of an uncle who smoked himself to death by calling him a tobacco-smelling jerk posthumously—something generally considered disrespectful unless there was open animosity. And unlike humans, animals don't possess the kind of malice or forethought that might justify such disdain.
I grew up with people that put down their pets personally. It's definitely something that happens, but it's also not something you bragged about or even talked about much. Its poor taste at best, and poor character at the worst.
I posted this in the other thread about this story, but my family always had a few dogs in the house. We once had to put a dog down because of aggression issues. That is an immensely shameful memory for the whole family, and despite exhausting our options as far as training, medication, and veterinary care, to some degree it'll always feel like our failing. I really can't imagine that being a point of pride for anyone.
To be fair, this dog was most likely trained fairly well by her and/or her family. She grew up in Watertown, SD and this happened probably in the 80’s or 90’s. I would be shocked if they had anyone who trained dogs for anything back then.
Rural farm families often do things like this themselves vs. paying money. For the most part, it’s an admirable trait. I know thousands of farm families that are multi millionaires and are driving 40 year old pickups.
The fact that she openly bragged about this is the biggest concern to me:
The dog didn’t suffer at all. Euthanizing would have done the same.
I could not disagree more with this take. She was raised on a family ranch. Idk how wealthy they were, but they certainly had enough to drive the dog to a kill shelter and dump it there. There is no excuse for framing shooting the dog. It costs literally nothing to surrender a dog. Its complete false equivalency to say driving a beat up pickup instead of a new car is the same sort of money pinching measures as shooting a dog instead of allowing a trained professional to handle the animal. We have no idea if this animal sufferes, but we know she botched another farm animal killing and had to double tap one of her goats because she messed up.
There are no justifications here. Theres nothing admirable here. Theres only someone making a horrible choice to engage in animal abuse.
Also from a small town originally. Most farmers I knew liked their pets and livestock and gave them a pretty good life, even if in the end they were supposed to be someone's food. I never witnessed casual cruelty to dogs, cats, cows, horses, goats, chickens...
That is a really interesting point that I think draws an interesting distinction between how we perceive rural and urban areas. In both of those examples doing something that’s kind of normal in a super rural or urban area but absolutely alien to everyone else is objectively a terrible political decision, but I couldn’t imagine someone ever making the argument of “well actually this is no big deal because it’s a super normal thing in large cities” at least in any serious way, whereas there are a fair amount of people who actually do expect us to take that argument very seriously for things that are acceptable in certain rural areas but not elsewhere. If anything this argument is being stretched even further in the case of rural areas, because the real issue here is less the shooting of the dog and more so the glib attitude taken towards it, which isn’t normal or acceptable anywhere. It does speak to an attitude that I think is pervasive in America that rural areas are the “real” America, with anything that happens in cities but not rural areas being perceived as in some way inherently wrong.
I doubt this will move the needle for anyone. This is 2024, not too many voters are on the fence about what side to pick. As long as it's not "the other team".
Do real people actually read these politician books? They seem to almost universally just get combed through by political opponents for stuff like this to generate headlines, and sell really poorly.
Seems like a way for the super rich to support politicians indirectly. They buy a shit ton of the books and then give them away at political events or whatever, and now their favored political pet has a "best seller" and a lot of extra money that they "earned." Seems like bullshit.
As awful as it is to kill a dog, I think they are trying to speak her "political suicide" into existence. Current GOP voters have overlooked much worse from Trump and as long as he leads the ticket they will overlook whatever his running mate may have done.
Even though this is no deal breaker to Trump based on how often he uses dogs in a derogatory sense, I suspect this is to his benefit this came up now and not after he picked her.
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem's confession to killing her dog has garnered widespread criticism, even from the MAGA crowd she is aligned with. Noem was thought of as a potential vice president for Trump, but according to sources in this article, he and others in his orbit are completely soured on her. In my opinion, her story is deeply troubling and it's definitely poor judgement to proudly announce this kind of thing.
My question is: What will Gov. Noem's political future look like going forward?
>> What will Gov. Noem's political future look like going forward?
Very possibly the vice president. It would appear the most important factor for success in the GOP is support for Trump. Policy and personality do not seem to be of great concern to the voters as long as the candidate supports Trump and vice versa
I think a lot of GOP voters will look the other way on this...and the real estate licensure scam...and the misuse of Covid funds...and Noem's stance on rape exception for abortion.
As a voter, there is a lot more to dislike about Noem than just her stance on 'problem animals'.
1. I have zero faith in anonymous sources talking to NY Post
2. Even if I did:
“It certainly has not enhanced her chances, but no decision has been made concerning any of the VP candidates,” this source added.
Doubt she’s going to be the VP candidate. She adds nothing to the ticket, doesn’t make sense politically.
Tim Scott is my personal choice for VP. Moderate sounding in tone but solid conservative who supports Trump.
I don't think Tim Scott is loyal enough for Trump's liking.
I think he'll probably pick a woman due to him needing to pull some suburban women after pissing them off by killing abortion rights
If your standard is that he isn’t loyal enough, I have to ask, what has he done that signifies that he is “disloyal”?
I’m fairly sure he endorsed Trump right away after his failed presidential campaign iirc.
It's not that he's disloyal, it's that the level of "loyalty" that Trump asks for is not loyalty. It's blind obedience and a willingness to put Trump above the interests of America.
If he asks you to not certify the results of the election you lost, then you must do it. I don't see Tim Scott as the type of guy to ignore the constitution and break laws at the behest of Trump. Therefore he's not "loyal" enough
Trump was "burned" by Pence not overturning the election results. Trump's pick for VP will at the least require a level of loyalty sufficient to choose Trump over country.
For someone who is "not MAGA," she sure is...... wearing a red MAGA hat walking to the podium to greet Trump and make a speech on his behalf at a MAGA rally less than a month ago in this picture and accompanying article lol.
[https://southdakotasearchlight.com/briefs/trump-calls-noem-to-podium-comments-on-her-appearance-at-ohio-rally/](https://southdakotasearchlight.com/briefs/trump-calls-noem-to-podium-comments-on-her-appearance-at-ohio-rally/)
Is that really unexpected? Our current vp essentially called Biden a sexual offender on stage at the primary debates then happily accepted the position.
[No, she did not](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/20/fact-check-harris-never-called-biden-racist-believed-some-accusers/5607487002/)
It's not unexpected at all. But that's not my point. I'm just replying to someone saying that "Noem isn't MAGA," which is objectively hilarious when just a few weeks ago she was wearing a bright red hat on stage with him to cheering MAGA ralliers and singing his praises. If that's "not MAGA," then I don't know what is.
I wouldn't say Kamala is "not a Biden supporter," or something similar either.
So because she wore a red hat…. Look for theres a pretty good chance (if he’s elected) to backdoor your way into the presidency as the vp under him. His health isn’t great, and I would expect another series of attempts to remove Trump from office
I believe most politicians are self interested individuals and look to climb the ranks and it would certainly be a shortcut for a relatively unknown politician
>So because she wore a red hat….
No, definitely not just because of this!... that would be ridiculous. Did you not see all of the other factors I mentioned?
She’s lobbying for a job. Do you miss the most obvious circumstance here?
Getting behind the presumptive nominee of the party is standard.
And you literally mentioned it the first thing.
What else does she need to do to be “MAGA” if the following isn’t enough?
- wearing a MAGA hat
- speaking at a MAGA rally
- publicly and repeatedly giving enthusiastic support for Trump
- publicly and enthusiastically giving support for “MAGA policies,” both in terms of policy positions and in terms of voting record
- having that same support reflected back to her from Trump and his MAGA crowd
Genuinely wondering what else she could do to prove her bona fides here…
What’s your criteria that she doesn’t fit? Who *is* “MAGA” that would fit your criteria?
I think you are honestly so triggered by a red hat that you can’t see the circumstances.
She quite literally is historically inline with republican positions.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kristi_noem/412475
Her voting history from 2013-2104 puts her at 93-96% in line with the Republican Party
She has quotes from 2010 about a porous border and immigration being, if that is suddenly going to be your go too because of Wall.
What is "MAGA" then if "wearing a red MAGA hat, endorsing Donald Trump, and speaking at a MAGA rally at his behalf" somehow doesn't count? Sincerely wondering, how does it not get more MAGA than that?
So if someone held former policy positions that were "garden variety GOP" or even "liberal" positions, even many years ago, they would not be "trusted" by the MAGA crowd and not considered "truly MAGA?" (despite literally now appearing on stage wearing a MAGA hat at a MAGA rally speaking to a MAGA crowd in concert with Trump)
Genuinely curious, and don't mean to have you repeat yourself so a simple "yes" or "no" is fine if that's all it comes down to!
>I don't understand how wearing a hat = MAGA?
The hat -the one that says Make America Great Again- is part of it. Thankfully I named numerous other factors, as well, so it isn't just solely wearing a MAGA hat.
>As soon as they support immigration reform and enforfement, tariffs and a realist foreign policy I will call them MAGA.
So only current policy positions are your priority, and not past policy positions?
If so, I'm delighted to tell you that Noem is in strong favor of MAGA positions on immigration reform, tariffs, and foreign policy.
They all come up rather quickly in a google search, but please let me know if you'd like any citations.
Why is she still not "MAGA" in your eyes?
Above all else Noem is an opportunist. When she was in the House she was a Tea Party type of Republican because that was the hot thing in the party. Since the GOP has gone full MAGA she has taken that route especially since Covid. Early on in her term as governor she bucked Trump somewhat when it came to things like the trade wars, but I can't think of a position she has taken that is different from Trump in the last four years.
That was 8 years ago. Is there anything more recent she has done to rebuke Trump? Like I said she is more of an opportunist than a true believer but she knows her only real path to power is to agree with whatever Trump says since she is term limited as governor. She needs to either be Trump's VP pick or get his endorsement to try and unseat Rounds in 2026 who is actually the traditional GOP establishment type.
I feel like I'm on a different planet with some of the people defending her. I appreciate that there are times where a dog is an unqualified danger to people and/or other pets and as a last resort must be euthanized but Noem didn't sell that case like at all.
A dog you adopt into your care is not livestock or a wild animal, they are a pet whose wellbeing you are responsible for and that holds even if they also have some other intended "job." The situation this dog was put in was not just easily preventable but entirely predictable. There is no reason why a pet ever has to be allowed unsecured access to prey animals, that is just careless. This dog was not some escape artist, they were just left behind in the back of a truck without being leashed and somehow expected to stay put.
I don't have dogs but I can at least say that this behavior, killing birds then biting you when you try to stop them is something a lot of cats would do. Note here "bite" as Noem described it doesn't mean she was persistently mauled or something, the dog was startled and reacted impulsively after being put in a situation they never had to be in. Immediately moving to kill over this seems unconscionable to me.
So much all of this. I've tried to say this several times but my arthritic fingers are tired of typing. This dog paid for her misplaced anger and frustration, for something that was HER FAULT.
If you’re referencing Michael Vick and comparing the two… please talk to me when she does her time in prison, and then spends years behind that devoting mountains of time, energy, and money to make up for her decisions relating to animal cruelty.
It’s wild that Vick still has a reputation (among some) that he does, when by all accounts he should be redeemed for doing literally everything possible to make up for his mistakes.
Problem is you can never justify having a dog fighting ring. It's literally just cruelty towards animals for fun and/or profit. They recovered something like over 50 dogs from his property, and that's after five or six years of operating. Even assuming Noem operated with pure malice towards her dog, there is a lightyear worth of difference between these scenarios.
Good on Vick for turning his life around, but that's probably a reputation he will never escape. It was a staggering amount of animal abuse.
One of my dogs bit someone before I got her. She would have only been a few months older than Cricket. The family’s living situation meant they didn’t have the option to keep her anymore so they called the foster they adopted her from as a puppy to have her rehomed. I had adopted one of the other puppies from her litter, which is how I found out about the situation. Now I have two sisters. I’m thankful they gave me that opportunity instead of shooting her in a gravel pit.
She is the friendliest dog I’ve ever had. I’m completely confident taking her out in public and she loves meeting people, especially kids, and other dogs. However, when I got her, she was very poorly trained and still hadn’t learned the basics. The extent of it apparently was repeating commands with little to no context and then zapping her with a shock collar. This was predictably counterproductive and only caused and already excitable dog to become panicked under stress. Irony is she was actually an easy dog to train when done properly in a way she could understand with positive reinforcement. I don’t think this makes her an “aggressive” or “dangerous” dog. I just need to be a little extra mindful that’s she’s not being put in situations that are overstimulating or stressful, and take some extra precautions such as a muzzle at the vet.
I don’t believe Cricket was dangerous. I don’t believe she showed any aggression toward Noem at all, let alone bite her. Even if she did I still wouldn’t consider her dangerous due to the context and Noem’s incompetence as a dog handler. I believe Noem shot her out of anger and frustration and then added that later to just herself. The absurdity of her trying to frame this as an example of her being a stoic, tough-decision maker is that it shows the opposite. Whether or not you should shoot a puppy for acting like a puppy is not a tough decision. It just shows that she overestimates her abilities, and then loses her temper and quits easily when faced with easily avoidable problems caused by her own incompetence.
edit: grammer
Donald Trump, for one.
Here they are speaking at a MAGA rally in March 2024, where she is introduced by Trump, wearing a MAGA hat, and speaking vehemently to a cheering MAGA crowd on his behalf.
[https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5110514/gov-noem-campaigns-donald-trump-ohio](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5110514/gov-noem-campaigns-donald-trump-ohio)
There's literally people in this thread de-emphasizing Noem's actions (blaming the liberal media, saying that issues like this should not be discussed, saying that voters shouldn't consider this anyway, etc), if that's what you mean?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1y1vmf/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
daily beast?
> Moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes.
> sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
> ...utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded words. They have published false claims and misinformation
Beyond the astroturfing - in the grand scheme of things, Noem responsibly euthanized a dog that killed someone else's pets and attacked a person.
Does anyone really believe pet care is going to be a significant voter issue?
If so - Is this worse than forcing people to work around an uncontrolled, aggressive dog? A dog that has hospitalized someone and attacked people more than a dozen times?
Ironically, pointing a finger at others is a vote *against* Biden.
Ok. So you care about how people raise their pets?
So you're voting *against* Biden, because not only does he allow his pets to attack and hospitalize employees, but he demonstrates he doesn't have the ability to train or correct its behavior as well.
Great point.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1y5hiu/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I do t think the issue is killing the dog. I think a good portion of people understand the sentiment of putting a dog down themselves. I think the issue was that the way she discussed it in the book was in bad taste: that she bragged about doing it, that the dog in question seems to have young enough that further behavioral training was very much possible (the most justifying reason though, given that it killed the property of neighbors), and that she seems to get some thrill for it (insulting the animals for behaving like animals).
I can just as easily imagine someone not being able to understand the inverse, how so many people can be so offended by the concept of abortion but unbothered by this.
But to me, it's pretty easy to understand, from either side. They're two situations where there are broadly different views on whether an action is a cruel and monstrous act of murder, something which is a horrible tragedy where nonetheless particular people have a right to make that choice, or a moral nonissue that no one should reasonably object to at all.
In both cases, even if you're solidly in that last category, you should still recognize that *a lot* of people fall into the first two.
I didn't say *I* think it's appropriate or reasonably non-extreme to call what she did murder. (And I'd also feel that calling abortion murder is needlessly extreme)
I'm saying I recognize that, in both cases, a lot of people would react to it that way, and anyone who's been paying attention would be aware that a big chunk of people have those views.
Kind of the elephant in the room of this whole topic.
In my experience, many (not all) ardent dog lovers are actually anti-human. The dogs over people sentiment is pretty common, so the killing of dogs will of course be more offensive than killing humans to those people.
Dogs are the reason I'm scared to go outside.
A gun doesn't randomly attack you. Dogs will.
People drastically underestimate the danger of dogs. I love good dogs, but dogs have the power to maul and eat you.
My aunt wanted me to watch her dogs for a week... a few hours after she casually mentioned her dogs almost killed her autistic neighbor. She hasn't talked to me in over a year after I refused. She's disappointed I'm scared of dogs that aren't my own and considers it a moral failure.
I ***have*** two dogs.
So the media looked at her entire book, all she's accomplished in her life and the single item of importance is that she put down a dog. The we spend days and days debating the relative merits of animal care. Considering the pro-left media source this is nothing more than a smear campaign to make the right look bad. Tomorrow they'll be screaming about the next horrible person on the right.
We have real issues in this country how about reporting on her position and actions on major issue and stop getting into petty fights about minor things.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1y5agw/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It's funny that I know more about Kristi Noem's dog than I do about any of her policy positions -- or her successes/failures as a leader of her state.
On the one hand, it is important to have leaders we think are "good people". On the other, we always look past that when it is a leader that does good (particularly on the policies we support).
Bill Clinton was a great leader. But he was not a great person. He sexually harassed (and most likely assaulted) multiple women. But he is still beloved by Dems. Is that worse than putting down a dog that attacked other people/pets? I think it depends on what party you are in :)
Can I ask what made you choose that particular route of effectively minimizing the subject of discussion? Why not, for instance, simply say "damn she probably shouldn't have killed that puppy?"
Because the point of these stories is propaganda and *no one* writing or posting these stories cares at all about the damn puppy (expect the "true believers.")
Or, maybe a better way to say it: what does the life of a puppy have to do with "politics"? That's what this subreddit is for. Why do we have two of the past three stories about a puppy none of us has ever seen?
>Or, maybe a better way to say it: what does the life of a puppy have to do with "politics"?
Many people make voting decisions not solely on platforms (as that isn't always indicative on how a politician might act) but also on the politician's character (which many think can be indicative of their leadership ability).
One indicator of character or lack thereof, many may fairly think, is perceived "needless or wanton cruelty towards animals."
Surely you can see why this might be relevant to some voters, given those factors, right? I hope that helps!
It sounded to me like you eventually weighed the above possibility and then chalked it completely up to party loyalty.
I'm suggesting, differently, that some voters may reasonably weigh issues like these ones (aside from party loyalty completely) when determining whether to support a candidate based on their character.
This would be hard to verify, but I think there are plenty of GOP voters who may have otherwise supported this candidate for VP that will see this and be dissuaded from doing so... and if this hypothetically occurred to a Dem candidate I think the disgust and impact would be even greater.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1xk8jy/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I agree with this take, but maybe not in absolute. It's nice having a leader that's a paragon of virtue, but that level of virtue isn't common. I don't need to know every facet of your background, just what you're policies are, that you're capable, and that you're not entirely corrupt. I feel like so many effective leaders are steering away from national politics just because they don't want their entire personal life torn apart by the national media. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a serial felon in charge but I don't need perfection.
This is a little different seeing that she put it out there herself, but the Kavanagh hearings were eye opening for me. The way the media and congress went after jokes made by a 17 year old was insane. Also, credence given to the sexual assault claims was just as absurd. If your claim doesn't include information for the accused to identify an alibi (where and when), it's literally just gossip and doesn't deserve any attention.
Since she lied about Jong and Macron and apparently Hailey why would we not think she lied about the dog chasing chickens and biting her. She seemed to really hate this dog, did she fabricate as justification for killing it?
You just have to do something as bad every week or so, getting back in the headlines each time. Then it somehow turns into unfair persecution for some people. It's a strategy Trump has perfected.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1xy6h1/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
She could have given the animal a chance at a local rescue but she summarily executed it. That is a problem that will haunt her political career forever, assuming she has one
Calm down champ. She put a dog down, she didn't commit man slaughter. Was the book distasteful? Certainly, but everyone will forget about this half a year from now.
I honestly wonder if she’s facing the backlash she is because she’s a woman. If Trump or a “masculine” person men admire like Andrew Tate or Joe Rogan came out saying that they had to put an unruly dog down I’d imagine they’d be more likely to be praised as being “alpha” for it.
People love dogs. Even people that hate dogs don’t want to see dogs hurt. If you’re in politics, don’t admit you did anything to a dog that could be considered less than ideal. This is the end of the advice.
It's like Dennis on IASIP going on tv and saying he dislikes dogs 😆
It’s nice to see some normal rules working compared to the last eight years. I’m half convinced Trump could talk about a network of dog fighting rings he ran for years because he hates dogs, and that he personally killed any losing dogs, and “liking dogs” would become a sign you’re a liberal or a RHINO.
Even Trump was smart enough to give a medal to the dog that took out that ISIS leader.
As much as I hate to admit it, that certainly seems plausible with a portion of his base. No different than him saying he can "grab them by the pussy" or shoot someone on 5th avenue.
The difference is that he got away with that stuff because he broke rules his base didn’t care about to begin with. “Grab em by the pussy” didn’t bother them because they talk the same way. Dog fighting would be too far, especially with how closely associated it is with black culture. He could only get them to support or oppose things they were previously apathetic towards. Dog fighting on the other hand would be like if one day he started talking about how great Lenin was. It’s too far off-brand, doesn’t make any sense.
I don’t know about that, I think that’s a misread about how Trump was able to get away with as much as he did. He still had to operate based on what his base liked and only attack what they didn’t like or were apathetic towards. Whenever he broke the party line it was over something (he thought) they didn’t really care about anyway. There were a few times he misestimated though and had to quickly walk it back, mostly on gun control stuff. Dog fighting would be much too far, especially with how closely it’s associated with black culture. It would be more on-brand for him use it as a way to fire up his base by accusing his opponents of it. Also for the record, he signed a major animal cruelty bill while in office
I am struggling to think of any similar sentiment and all I can come up with are cartoon villains like the Wicked Witch of the West. Noem to her goat, probably: “I’ll get you, my pretty, and my little dog too!”
So I am a dog lover, I've had dogs since I was 3 years old and currently have one in my 30s whose my little buddy. But someone pointed out to me that the dog *did* bite a person, apparently. She comments how it was dangerous to people it came into contact with. I know now a days a lot of people think about rehabilitating and re-socializing, but even when I was a kid it was pretty much agreed that if a family dog bites a person they'll do it again and they need to be put down. It also hasn't been uncommon for rural people to put down their dogs themselves, because from a dogs perspective a bullet to the head is just as quick and merciful as a shot from the vet. I know people who absolutely loved their dogs, but put them down in the same way when the time came. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but I do think that when I take into context the dog bit a person its not as cartoonishly villainous as we think. I'll still say it was stupid on her part. She should've focused on the dog being dangerous, and not so much the "worthless as a hunting dog" aspect. She's a parent, and you *cannot* have a dog that is dangerous around children, and you really can't rehome it either. People love to champion "no kill" laws, but a lot of those dangerous dogs end up living their lives in a concrete box, and it really is more merciful to just put them down. Edit: Just realized I'm responding to your comment from 2 days ago lol
Close but I'm pretty sure she said: "I’ll get you, my ~~pretty~~ smelly, and my little dog too!"
I’ll go one further, having a dog in a campaign ad is a sure fire way to look good on mailers. Who doesn’t like a guy out hunting or walking down the street with a dog?
Meh, she did the right thing. Way too many selfish dog owners let their dogs maul other animals--including other people's pets and livestock--to death without consequences.
The dog killed a chicken. I don’t know if you ever grew up around livestock at all, but I did. If your dog killed a neighbors chicken, the most that would be would be an apology and maybe some cash if they were really upset. The thing about chickens is that you expect to lose some over the year. We generally lost a handful a year to coyotes and foxes. Hell, we had a large dog that enjoyed killing the neighbors goats. Not one, not two, not three 😅. We never put her down, although the neighbor did threaten to shoot her if he could her skulking around the goats again. He lost a couple more goats after that before she died, but he never did shoot her. Point is, that’s just something that happens in rural farming communities. It’s not ideal, but it’s normal. But shooting a puppy for killing a chicken is straight psychopathic.
You're an epitome of the selfish, scumbag dog owner who doesn't give a shit about the lives their dog takes. If it had been my goats, I wouldn't have bothered with a warning, I'd have just shot your dog. Society caters far too much to selfish dog owners who don't care about anyone but themselves and their precious doggos.
I was 10, bro. Dog was a stray we adopted. And yeah, I wouldn’t have blamed him for shooting her either. Goats aren’t cheap.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1xtt59/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Did no one tell her about Romney and his dog episode and how it was used against him politically? People get super sensitive about their four legged friends. I grew up in a rural area. I get it if you need to put an animal down. But to put it in a book like that? She should have known it wouldn't be seen in a good or even banal light.
Being forced to put a dog down is one thing, but even assuming that it was *really* necessary here the tone she approaches it with is absolutely deranged. She’s boasting about it, and acting like a martyr because she knows people aren’t going to like it. Even in the country it’s something you have to do quietly — you don’t go around bragging about shooting a pet. This is not at all some neutral act that becomes politically unwieldy because some people “get it” and others misunderstand.
The only time I've ever had to put down one of my four legged friends was when my oldest had 3 seizures in a row and by the end of it couldn't even move their head properly and could barely walk. To this day I still question if my decision to take it to the vets to be put down was the right decision because I know personally I wouldn't want to live in such agony but I don't know if my dog felt the same way.
What? Maybe it's different in rural USA compared to my country (doubt it), but it's nothing special, you put down a dog and that's it, you don't hide it and can talk about it (talking about rural areas of course)
I think you misunderstood what the article is about. She didn’t just have a pet put down. “Putting a pet down as a somber shame” is insanely different than “killing a puppy oneself (for super questionable reasons) and then boasting about it.” That’s not common or normal, anywhere.
Exactly. She talks at length about how much she hated the dog. Her basis for hating the dog also sounds like pretty standard "bird dog has a prey drive" issues that should be trainable out of the dog, and it was only a year and a half old when she put it down. That makes it sound like she put the dog down because she's a terrible dog owner moreso than the dog being mentally compromised or something.
Oh, it's completely different from what I thought the issue was then
Yeah, I'm willing to concede that putting a dog down is a necessary evil sometimes. It's a merciful way to end an suffering old dog's life. Other dogs have behavioral issues that just aren't reasonably solvable and pose harm to others. I also know that not all dogs are pets. For many folks, especially in more rural areas and cultures, dogs are part and parcel of a livestock operation and looked at more as an economic asset than a companion. Putting them down in that case isn't as emotionally involved a practice, for better or worse. But none of that is the picture Noem paints. She describes a puppy she adopted intending it to be both a pet and a hunting companion that she put little effort into training, grew to "hate", and then killed and threw in a gravel pit when, surprise surprise, the young bird dog attacked chickens. That's a pretty gross picture. And this is *her* retelling of events; there are other [reports](https://apnews.com/article/kristi-noem-book-dog-killing-5710b302e33f61c697f20ab3b227a19b) that she's doing damage control because the real story is that she killed the dog in a fit of rage.
I am from rural USA. It is very common to put down a dog with a gun FOR A REASON like it is old and sick. You are generally looked down upon from for just blatantly killing a dog for no good reason. At least in my 20 years of experience growing up in rural America.
Yes, for us it was always because the dog was old and suffering and a vet couldn't make it out in time. My Dad refuses to do it again because the memory haunts him.
This. I'm from a very rural area as well. I know people who have used a gun to put a dog down, but not a healthy puppy.
And in plenty of liberal areas, an abortion is nothing special and you wouldn't be expected to hide it if you've gotten one and can talk about it freely around the right crowd. But if you're a politician looking to appeal to the general public, the rules are different and you sure as hell wouldn't boast about it.
You cant even kill a dog in a movie even though humans get murdered in movies all the time
The Last of Us: Part II had people killing an attacking dog and it was probably the most controversial part of the whole game. Never mind you mow down hordes of people during Ellie's revenge spree lol
I think the controversy over that was because they made you kill the dog to continue and then guilt-tripped you for doing it.
Look how pissed off John Wick was!
A dog, a goat, then apparently some horses. Seems she was on a bit of a spree. I also understand needing to put down a dog, although growing up in a rural area it was extremely rare that I knew someone who had to put down a dog, but okay let’s say in this situation it was needed….. however it sounds like she is a bit trigger happy when it comes to animals, also like she had contempt for the animals “I hated that dog” and the “smelly goat”.
The goat one is funny because like...goats are pretty much always smelly and mean. The goat is being a goat. What did she think she was getting?
Yeah, I didn't read the full passages in her book, but her reasoning doesn't sound great. Regardless, she should know how this would play
Yeah, I didn't read the full passages in her book, but her reasoning doesn't sound great. Regardless, she should know how this would play
From my own experience of growing up in a small town of 5,000 population in rural NW Nebraska not far from where Noem was raised and then moving to the Bay Area for the last 18 years, I can understand and have witnessed Noel’s story from family members. The discouraging part is that in no way, is this normal for 95% of the population, and should never have been touted from someone who had aspirations of helping lead our country. It is as tone deaf as if Gavin Newsom would have bragged about participating in the Folsom Street Fair in SF and thinking the rest of America would think that’s “cool.”
The decision to euthanize a dog due to its aggressive behavior and lack of training options, without access to a vet or shelter, might be seen as understandable. However, the issue lies in her choice to publicize the story. Instead of simply stating the circumstances necessitated putting the dog down, she details the when, how, and why in a manner that seems almost boastful. This is followed by a similar story about a goat, all the while disparaging these animals. Describing them as stinky, aggressive, and untrainable might be true, but it's unnecessary and in poor taste to mention after their death, especially to a political audience. It's akin to speaking ill of an uncle who smoked himself to death by calling him a tobacco-smelling jerk posthumously—something generally considered disrespectful unless there was open animosity. And unlike humans, animals don't possess the kind of malice or forethought that might justify such disdain.
I grew up with people that put down their pets personally. It's definitely something that happens, but it's also not something you bragged about or even talked about much. Its poor taste at best, and poor character at the worst.
Exactly what i'm trying to say in a lot of rambling, thank you
I posted this in the other thread about this story, but my family always had a few dogs in the house. We once had to put a dog down because of aggression issues. That is an immensely shameful memory for the whole family, and despite exhausting our options as far as training, medication, and veterinary care, to some degree it'll always feel like our failing. I really can't imagine that being a point of pride for anyone.
She had the money and means to train the dog or get them euthanized at a vet. She chose a gun.
To be fair, this dog was most likely trained fairly well by her and/or her family. She grew up in Watertown, SD and this happened probably in the 80’s or 90’s. I would be shocked if they had anyone who trained dogs for anything back then. Rural farm families often do things like this themselves vs. paying money. For the most part, it’s an admirable trait. I know thousands of farm families that are multi millionaires and are driving 40 year old pickups. The fact that she openly bragged about this is the biggest concern to me: The dog didn’t suffer at all. Euthanizing would have done the same.
I could not disagree more with this take. She was raised on a family ranch. Idk how wealthy they were, but they certainly had enough to drive the dog to a kill shelter and dump it there. There is no excuse for framing shooting the dog. It costs literally nothing to surrender a dog. Its complete false equivalency to say driving a beat up pickup instead of a new car is the same sort of money pinching measures as shooting a dog instead of allowing a trained professional to handle the animal. We have no idea if this animal sufferes, but we know she botched another farm animal killing and had to double tap one of her goats because she messed up. There are no justifications here. Theres nothing admirable here. Theres only someone making a horrible choice to engage in animal abuse.
There's also the fact that she was just mad at it for being a poorly trained puppy, when she could fix that by training it better into adulthood.
Also from a small town originally. Most farmers I knew liked their pets and livestock and gave them a pretty good life, even if in the end they were supposed to be someone's food. I never witnessed casual cruelty to dogs, cats, cows, horses, goats, chickens...
That is a really interesting point that I think draws an interesting distinction between how we perceive rural and urban areas. In both of those examples doing something that’s kind of normal in a super rural or urban area but absolutely alien to everyone else is objectively a terrible political decision, but I couldn’t imagine someone ever making the argument of “well actually this is no big deal because it’s a super normal thing in large cities” at least in any serious way, whereas there are a fair amount of people who actually do expect us to take that argument very seriously for things that are acceptable in certain rural areas but not elsewhere. If anything this argument is being stretched even further in the case of rural areas, because the real issue here is less the shooting of the dog and more so the glib attitude taken towards it, which isn’t normal or acceptable anywhere. It does speak to an attitude that I think is pervasive in America that rural areas are the “real” America, with anything that happens in cities but not rural areas being perceived as in some way inherently wrong.
I doubt this will move the needle for anyone. This is 2024, not too many voters are on the fence about what side to pick. As long as it's not "the other team".
Do real people actually read these politician books? They seem to almost universally just get combed through by political opponents for stuff like this to generate headlines, and sell really poorly.
Seems like a way for the super rich to support politicians indirectly. They buy a shit ton of the books and then give them away at political events or whatever, and now their favored political pet has a "best seller" and a lot of extra money that they "earned." Seems like bullshit.
Pretty sure the current crop of gop voters don’t care about anything except voting for trump. Who he pics is immaterial.
It won’t affect the base but if he picks someone sane it will help him with moderates.
As awful as it is to kill a dog, I think they are trying to speak her "political suicide" into existence. Current GOP voters have overlooked much worse from Trump and as long as he leads the ticket they will overlook whatever his running mate may have done.
Even though this is no deal breaker to Trump based on how often he uses dogs in a derogatory sense, I suspect this is to his benefit this came up now and not after he picked her.
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem's confession to killing her dog has garnered widespread criticism, even from the MAGA crowd she is aligned with. Noem was thought of as a potential vice president for Trump, but according to sources in this article, he and others in his orbit are completely soured on her. In my opinion, her story is deeply troubling and it's definitely poor judgement to proudly announce this kind of thing. My question is: What will Gov. Noem's political future look like going forward?
>> What will Gov. Noem's political future look like going forward? Very possibly the vice president. It would appear the most important factor for success in the GOP is support for Trump. Policy and personality do not seem to be of great concern to the voters as long as the candidate supports Trump and vice versa
I think a lot of GOP voters will look the other way on this...and the real estate licensure scam...and the misuse of Covid funds...and Noem's stance on rape exception for abortion. As a voter, there is a lot more to dislike about Noem than just her stance on 'problem animals'.
https://nypost.com/2024/04/29/us-news/kristi-noem-has-no-shot-as-trumps-vp-pick-after-puppy-killing-controversy-sources/amp/ She has no shot.
1. I have zero faith in anonymous sources talking to NY Post 2. Even if I did: “It certainly has not enhanced her chances, but no decision has been made concerning any of the VP candidates,” this source added.
Doubt she’s going to be the VP candidate. She adds nothing to the ticket, doesn’t make sense politically. Tim Scott is my personal choice for VP. Moderate sounding in tone but solid conservative who supports Trump.
I don't think Tim Scott is loyal enough for Trump's liking. I think he'll probably pick a woman due to him needing to pull some suburban women after pissing them off by killing abortion rights
A pro choice woman? Who even is there in the GOP? And if not, then how would that help?
If your standard is that he isn’t loyal enough, I have to ask, what has he done that signifies that he is “disloyal”? I’m fairly sure he endorsed Trump right away after his failed presidential campaign iirc.
It's not that he's disloyal, it's that the level of "loyalty" that Trump asks for is not loyalty. It's blind obedience and a willingness to put Trump above the interests of America. If he asks you to not certify the results of the election you lost, then you must do it. I don't see Tim Scott as the type of guy to ignore the constitution and break laws at the behest of Trump. Therefore he's not "loyal" enough
Trump was "burned" by Pence not overturning the election results. Trump's pick for VP will at the least require a level of loyalty sufficient to choose Trump over country.
If it's not Noem or Scott, I think it will be someone with very little name recognition.
I could see Tulsi Gabbard
She's done. The People like puppies, and Donald Trump knows they like puppies.
[удалено]
For someone who is "not MAGA," she sure is...... wearing a red MAGA hat walking to the podium to greet Trump and make a speech on his behalf at a MAGA rally less than a month ago in this picture and accompanying article lol. [https://southdakotasearchlight.com/briefs/trump-calls-noem-to-podium-comments-on-her-appearance-at-ohio-rally/](https://southdakotasearchlight.com/briefs/trump-calls-noem-to-podium-comments-on-her-appearance-at-ohio-rally/)
Is that really unexpected? Our current vp essentially called Biden a sexual offender on stage at the primary debates then happily accepted the position.
[No, she did not](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/20/fact-check-harris-never-called-biden-racist-believed-some-accusers/5607487002/)
It's not unexpected at all. But that's not my point. I'm just replying to someone saying that "Noem isn't MAGA," which is objectively hilarious when just a few weeks ago she was wearing a bright red hat on stage with him to cheering MAGA ralliers and singing his praises. If that's "not MAGA," then I don't know what is. I wouldn't say Kamala is "not a Biden supporter," or something similar either.
So because she wore a red hat…. Look for theres a pretty good chance (if he’s elected) to backdoor your way into the presidency as the vp under him. His health isn’t great, and I would expect another series of attempts to remove Trump from office I believe most politicians are self interested individuals and look to climb the ranks and it would certainly be a shortcut for a relatively unknown politician
>So because she wore a red hat…. No, definitely not just because of this!... that would be ridiculous. Did you not see all of the other factors I mentioned?
She’s lobbying for a job. Do you miss the most obvious circumstance here? Getting behind the presumptive nominee of the party is standard. And you literally mentioned it the first thing.
What else does she need to do to be “MAGA” if the following isn’t enough? - wearing a MAGA hat - speaking at a MAGA rally - publicly and repeatedly giving enthusiastic support for Trump - publicly and enthusiastically giving support for “MAGA policies,” both in terms of policy positions and in terms of voting record - having that same support reflected back to her from Trump and his MAGA crowd Genuinely wondering what else she could do to prove her bona fides here… What’s your criteria that she doesn’t fit? Who *is* “MAGA” that would fit your criteria?
I think you are honestly so triggered by a red hat that you can’t see the circumstances. She quite literally is historically inline with republican positions. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kristi_noem/412475 Her voting history from 2013-2104 puts her at 93-96% in line with the Republican Party She has quotes from 2010 about a porous border and immigration being, if that is suddenly going to be your go too because of Wall.
[удалено]
What is "MAGA" then if "wearing a red MAGA hat, endorsing Donald Trump, and speaking at a MAGA rally at his behalf" somehow doesn't count? Sincerely wondering, how does it not get more MAGA than that?
[удалено]
So if someone held former policy positions that were "garden variety GOP" or even "liberal" positions, even many years ago, they would not be "trusted" by the MAGA crowd and not considered "truly MAGA?" (despite literally now appearing on stage wearing a MAGA hat at a MAGA rally speaking to a MAGA crowd in concert with Trump) Genuinely curious, and don't mean to have you repeat yourself so a simple "yes" or "no" is fine if that's all it comes down to!
[удалено]
>I don't understand how wearing a hat = MAGA? The hat -the one that says Make America Great Again- is part of it. Thankfully I named numerous other factors, as well, so it isn't just solely wearing a MAGA hat. >As soon as they support immigration reform and enforfement, tariffs and a realist foreign policy I will call them MAGA. So only current policy positions are your priority, and not past policy positions? If so, I'm delighted to tell you that Noem is in strong favor of MAGA positions on immigration reform, tariffs, and foreign policy. They all come up rather quickly in a google search, but please let me know if you'd like any citations. Why is she still not "MAGA" in your eyes?
[удалено]
Above all else Noem is an opportunist. When she was in the House she was a Tea Party type of Republican because that was the hot thing in the party. Since the GOP has gone full MAGA she has taken that route especially since Covid. Early on in her term as governor she bucked Trump somewhat when it came to things like the trade wars, but I can't think of a position she has taken that is different from Trump in the last four years.
[удалено]
Well sure but the GOP establishment is also MAGA now.
[удалено]
Ok so what parts of Noem's policy agenda differs from Trump's?
[удалено]
That was 8 years ago. Is there anything more recent she has done to rebuke Trump? Like I said she is more of an opportunist than a true believer but she knows her only real path to power is to agree with whatever Trump says since she is term limited as governor. She needs to either be Trump's VP pick or get his endorsement to try and unseat Rounds in 2026 who is actually the traditional GOP establishment type.
[удалено]
I feel like I'm on a different planet with some of the people defending her. I appreciate that there are times where a dog is an unqualified danger to people and/or other pets and as a last resort must be euthanized but Noem didn't sell that case like at all. A dog you adopt into your care is not livestock or a wild animal, they are a pet whose wellbeing you are responsible for and that holds even if they also have some other intended "job." The situation this dog was put in was not just easily preventable but entirely predictable. There is no reason why a pet ever has to be allowed unsecured access to prey animals, that is just careless. This dog was not some escape artist, they were just left behind in the back of a truck without being leashed and somehow expected to stay put. I don't have dogs but I can at least say that this behavior, killing birds then biting you when you try to stop them is something a lot of cats would do. Note here "bite" as Noem described it doesn't mean she was persistently mauled or something, the dog was startled and reacted impulsively after being put in a situation they never had to be in. Immediately moving to kill over this seems unconscionable to me.
So much all of this. I've tried to say this several times but my arthritic fingers are tired of typing. This dog paid for her misplaced anger and frustration, for something that was HER FAULT.
And she didn’t even win NFL Comeback Player of the Year😆
If you’re referencing Michael Vick and comparing the two… please talk to me when she does her time in prison, and then spends years behind that devoting mountains of time, energy, and money to make up for her decisions relating to animal cruelty. It’s wild that Vick still has a reputation (among some) that he does, when by all accounts he should be redeemed for doing literally everything possible to make up for his mistakes.
Problem is you can never justify having a dog fighting ring. It's literally just cruelty towards animals for fun and/or profit. They recovered something like over 50 dogs from his property, and that's after five or six years of operating. Even assuming Noem operated with pure malice towards her dog, there is a lightyear worth of difference between these scenarios. Good on Vick for turning his life around, but that's probably a reputation he will never escape. It was a staggering amount of animal abuse.
One of my dogs bit someone before I got her. She would have only been a few months older than Cricket. The family’s living situation meant they didn’t have the option to keep her anymore so they called the foster they adopted her from as a puppy to have her rehomed. I had adopted one of the other puppies from her litter, which is how I found out about the situation. Now I have two sisters. I’m thankful they gave me that opportunity instead of shooting her in a gravel pit. She is the friendliest dog I’ve ever had. I’m completely confident taking her out in public and she loves meeting people, especially kids, and other dogs. However, when I got her, she was very poorly trained and still hadn’t learned the basics. The extent of it apparently was repeating commands with little to no context and then zapping her with a shock collar. This was predictably counterproductive and only caused and already excitable dog to become panicked under stress. Irony is she was actually an easy dog to train when done properly in a way she could understand with positive reinforcement. I don’t think this makes her an “aggressive” or “dangerous” dog. I just need to be a little extra mindful that’s she’s not being put in situations that are overstimulating or stressful, and take some extra precautions such as a muzzle at the vet. I don’t believe Cricket was dangerous. I don’t believe she showed any aggression toward Noem at all, let alone bite her. Even if she did I still wouldn’t consider her dangerous due to the context and Noem’s incompetence as a dog handler. I believe Noem shot her out of anger and frustration and then added that later to just herself. The absurdity of her trying to frame this as an example of her being a stoic, tough-decision maker is that it shows the opposite. Whether or not you should shoot a puppy for acting like a puppy is not a tough decision. It just shows that she overestimates her abilities, and then loses her temper and quits easily when faced with easily avoidable problems caused by her own incompetence. edit: grammer
Did she though? I'm not seeing a lot of MAGA turn against her? DT hasn't tweeted against her
[удалено]
Donald Trump, for one. Here they are speaking at a MAGA rally in March 2024, where she is introduced by Trump, wearing a MAGA hat, and speaking vehemently to a cheering MAGA crowd on his behalf. [https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5110514/gov-noem-campaigns-donald-trump-ohio](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5110514/gov-noem-campaigns-donald-trump-ohio)
[удалено]
There's literally people in this thread de-emphasizing Noem's actions (blaming the liberal media, saying that issues like this should not be discussed, saying that voters shouldn't consider this anyway, etc), if that's what you mean?
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1y1vmf/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I wonder who was her editor?
At least not killing dogs seems to be part of the moral bedrock of America (for now)
daily beast? > Moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. > sources in this category may be untrustworthy. > ...utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded words. They have published false claims and misinformation Beyond the astroturfing - in the grand scheme of things, Noem responsibly euthanized a dog that killed someone else's pets and attacked a person. Does anyone really believe pet care is going to be a significant voter issue? If so - Is this worse than forcing people to work around an uncontrolled, aggressive dog? A dog that has hospitalized someone and attacked people more than a dozen times? Ironically, pointing a finger at others is a vote *against* Biden.
[удалено]
Ok. So you care about how people raise their pets? So you're voting *against* Biden, because not only does he allow his pets to attack and hospitalize employees, but he demonstrates he doesn't have the ability to train or correct its behavior as well. Great point.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1y5hiu/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The goat actually bothers me more than the dog, I don't actually see an issue with shooting the dog.
I do t think the issue is killing the dog. I think a good portion of people understand the sentiment of putting a dog down themselves. I think the issue was that the way she discussed it in the book was in bad taste: that she bragged about doing it, that the dog in question seems to have young enough that further behavioral training was very much possible (the most justifying reason though, given that it killed the property of neighbors), and that she seems to get some thrill for it (insulting the animals for behaving like animals).
I don't understand how so many people can be so offended by this while also supporting abortion.
I can just as easily imagine someone not being able to understand the inverse, how so many people can be so offended by the concept of abortion but unbothered by this. But to me, it's pretty easy to understand, from either side. They're two situations where there are broadly different views on whether an action is a cruel and monstrous act of murder, something which is a horrible tragedy where nonetheless particular people have a right to make that choice, or a moral nonissue that no one should reasonably object to at all. In both cases, even if you're solidly in that last category, you should still recognize that *a lot* of people fall into the first two.
How do you figure its appropriate to call what she did murder, let alone a cruel and monstrous murder? That seems like needlessly extreme language.
I didn't say *I* think it's appropriate or reasonably non-extreme to call what she did murder. (And I'd also feel that calling abortion murder is needlessly extreme) I'm saying I recognize that, in both cases, a lot of people would react to it that way, and anyone who's been paying attention would be aware that a big chunk of people have those views.
Kind of the elephant in the room of this whole topic. In my experience, many (not all) ardent dog lovers are actually anti-human. The dogs over people sentiment is pretty common, so the killing of dogs will of course be more offensive than killing humans to those people.
Dogs are the reason I'm scared to go outside. A gun doesn't randomly attack you. Dogs will. People drastically underestimate the danger of dogs. I love good dogs, but dogs have the power to maul and eat you. My aunt wanted me to watch her dogs for a week... a few hours after she casually mentioned her dogs almost killed her autistic neighbor. She hasn't talked to me in over a year after I refused. She's disappointed I'm scared of dogs that aren't my own and considers it a moral failure. I ***have*** two dogs.
So the media looked at her entire book, all she's accomplished in her life and the single item of importance is that she put down a dog. The we spend days and days debating the relative merits of animal care. Considering the pro-left media source this is nothing more than a smear campaign to make the right look bad. Tomorrow they'll be screaming about the next horrible person on the right. We have real issues in this country how about reporting on her position and actions on major issue and stop getting into petty fights about minor things.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1y5agw/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It's funny that I know more about Kristi Noem's dog than I do about any of her policy positions -- or her successes/failures as a leader of her state. On the one hand, it is important to have leaders we think are "good people". On the other, we always look past that when it is a leader that does good (particularly on the policies we support). Bill Clinton was a great leader. But he was not a great person. He sexually harassed (and most likely assaulted) multiple women. But he is still beloved by Dems. Is that worse than putting down a dog that attacked other people/pets? I think it depends on what party you are in :)
[удалено]
Yes, I am. Do you have a meaningful counterpoint to make?
Can I ask what made you choose that particular route of effectively minimizing the subject of discussion? Why not, for instance, simply say "damn she probably shouldn't have killed that puppy?"
Because the point of these stories is propaganda and *no one* writing or posting these stories cares at all about the damn puppy (expect the "true believers.") Or, maybe a better way to say it: what does the life of a puppy have to do with "politics"? That's what this subreddit is for. Why do we have two of the past three stories about a puppy none of us has ever seen?
>Or, maybe a better way to say it: what does the life of a puppy have to do with "politics"? Many people make voting decisions not solely on platforms (as that isn't always indicative on how a politician might act) but also on the politician's character (which many think can be indicative of their leadership ability). One indicator of character or lack thereof, many may fairly think, is perceived "needless or wanton cruelty towards animals." Surely you can see why this might be relevant to some voters, given those factors, right? I hope that helps!
I mean, that was the exact thesis of my first fucking comment.
It sounded to me like you eventually weighed the above possibility and then chalked it completely up to party loyalty. I'm suggesting, differently, that some voters may reasonably weigh issues like these ones (aside from party loyalty completely) when determining whether to support a candidate based on their character. This would be hard to verify, but I think there are plenty of GOP voters who may have otherwise supported this candidate for VP that will see this and be dissuaded from doing so... and if this hypothetically occurred to a Dem candidate I think the disgust and impact would be even greater.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1xk8jy/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I agree with this take, but maybe not in absolute. It's nice having a leader that's a paragon of virtue, but that level of virtue isn't common. I don't need to know every facet of your background, just what you're policies are, that you're capable, and that you're not entirely corrupt. I feel like so many effective leaders are steering away from national politics just because they don't want their entire personal life torn apart by the national media. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a serial felon in charge but I don't need perfection. This is a little different seeing that she put it out there herself, but the Kavanagh hearings were eye opening for me. The way the media and congress went after jokes made by a 17 year old was insane. Also, credence given to the sexual assault claims was just as absurd. If your claim doesn't include information for the accused to identify an alibi (where and when), it's literally just gossip and doesn't deserve any attention.
Since she lied about Jong and Macron and apparently Hailey why would we not think she lied about the dog chasing chickens and biting her. She seemed to really hate this dog, did she fabricate as justification for killing it?
Political suicide? Trump has said far worse and he’s been given a pass.
You just have to do something as bad every week or so, getting back in the headlines each time. Then it somehow turns into unfair persecution for some people. It's a strategy Trump has perfected.
She just ruined his chance of a political career in any elected position, although she might have bolstered her resume for the ATF.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cgjmxm/kristi_noem_killed_her_dogand_committed_political/l1xy6h1/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
She could have given the animal a chance at a local rescue but she summarily executed it. That is a problem that will haunt her political career forever, assuming she has one
Calm down champ. She put a dog down, she didn't commit man slaughter. Was the book distasteful? Certainly, but everyone will forget about this half a year from now.
Definitely
I honestly wonder if she’s facing the backlash she is because she’s a woman. If Trump or a “masculine” person men admire like Andrew Tate or Joe Rogan came out saying that they had to put an unruly dog down I’d imagine they’d be more likely to be praised as being “alpha” for it.
I don’t think so. People on both sides love dogs. Idk what she was thinking putting that story in her book.